Receiving the Holy Spirit

[slh3016]

Using extreme examples like that is also not the most helpful for discussion as it uses extreme evil to derail a point. My point still stands though: you are a created thing therefore you cannot separate yourself from the love of God.

See it however you want, but the universal truth you are trying to imply (if your interpretation and beliefs are correct) is that there is NOTHING no matter how trivial or how heinous or evil that someone can do that will separate themselves from God once they have been “saved.” Using extreme examples as I did clearly demonstrates the absurdity of the argument. I’m sorry you don’t see it that way but as a Protestant-on-my-way-to-the-Catholic-Church Christian, I know all about “crying foul” when something doesn’t suit my own brand of theology.

 

[pablope]

You’re confusing justification which happens at the moment of salvation, with sanctification which is the life-long process where we strive to be like Christ, until death, when we are finally glorified. But works doesn’t “maintain” one’s salvation, because it can’t be lost because it’s “eternal” (John 3:16; 10:27-29; Romans 8:38-39).

May I suggest you read and study this journal:

chnetwork.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/06/salvation.pdf

Justification By Faith
By Dr. William Marshner

Stages of Justification
Catholic and Protestant views on the respective roles of grace, faith and works cannot be compared meaningfully, unless one specifies what stage of the justificational process one is talking about. In the preparatory stage, for instance, in which prevenient graces first stir a person towards an interest in religious truth, towards repentance, and towards faith, Catholics, Lutherans and Calvinists are at one in saying “sola gratia.”2 A second stage is the very transition from death to life, which is the first stage of justification proper. Here the parties are at one in saying “sola fide,” though they seem to mean different things by it. Protestants tend to mean that, at this stage, by the grace of God, man’s act of faith is the sole act required of him; Catholics mean that faith is the beginning, foundation and root of all justification, since only faith makes possible the acts of hope and charity (i.e. love-for-God) which are also required.3 However, since most Protestants have a broad notion of the act of faith, whereby it includes elements of hope and love, it is often hard to tell how far the difference on this point is real and how far it is a matter of words. Finally, however, there comes a third stage, that of actual Christian life, with its problems of growth and perseverance. The man justified by faith is called to “walk” with God, to progress in holiness. It is at this stage that the parties sharply diverge. Catholics affirm, and Protestants strenuously deny, that the born-again Christian’s good works merit for him the increase of grace and of the Christian virtues. As a result, Protestant piety has no obvious place for the self- sacrifices, fasts, and states of perfection which are prominent features of Catholic piety. At each stage, neither the apparent agreements nor the apparent disagreements can be understood without looking at certain metaphysical quarrels, the chief of which is over the very existence of what
Catholics call “grace.”

 

[pablope]

I’m not questioning the authority of the Catholic church. I don’t take issue with the Catholic church. To do so would violate forum rules, which I respect & desire to obey, so please don’t bate me.

?

What bating are you talking about?

It is a question to you…why do you think your positions, which are against the teachings of the Catholic Church, are correct and the the CC wrong?

What makes your interpretations correct? Don’t you know? Or you just assumed you are correct, and cannot err in anyway?

 

[thetazlord]

Show me in the text where it says “nobody was baptized” or are you just assuming they weren’t?

Show me in the Bible where there is a significant delay in one believing/trusting Christ and baptism? You are not reading the text in context and there is ABSOLUTELY nothing there to support your “theory” that Paul just left these people unbaptized. Actually, he didn’t even mention specific people that he didn’t baptize. He was addressing a much broader problem which was that people who HAD BEEN baptized were identifying themselves with the person who baptized them. He was saying that this was in error and that baptism identifies them with Christ. He simply states that **he ** is glad that he had not perpetuated that problem by having baptized many people.

If you read his words in context, it appears that he is saying (paraphrasing):

“Hey guys, I’ve heard of this problem that your’re having there in Corinth. There seems to be some people going around claiming that their baptism was more “special” than other people’s baptism because they were baptized by me, Cephus, or Apollos while others are rightly claiming they were baptized by Christ. Let me assure you, that Christ cannot be divided. You weren’t baptized in the name of Paul, Cephus or Apollos, were you? No, you baptized in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit because Christ was crucified for you. Therefore, you are all equal. I am so glad, now, that I didn’t baptized many people except Crispus, Gaius, and the household of Stephanus, because I don’t want my name associated with this silly quarrel. My time is best spent preaching the gospel…”

It amazes me that you refuse to read this passage with any other lens on than that of your own authoritativeness.

I don’t have to prove a negative. Since you are making the claim that EVERYBODY was baptized (incorrectly), then the burden of proof is on you to prove your assertion - not me. And no offense, but your “paraphrasing” isn’t supported by Paul’s writing. You are reading into Scripture. At best, it’s vague.

 

[thetazlord]

John 3:16 “For whosoever **believes **in Him shall not perish but have eternal life.”

**What does belief mean? Again, it can’t merely mean assenting with the intellect that Jesus is God’s Son. Belief requires more than this or otherwise, Satan and his demons will be with us in heaven. **

I’ve addressed this already - several times now:

forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=12662150&postcount=46

Romans 8:38-39 states that “neither death, nor life, nor angels, nor principalities, nor things present, nor things to come, nor powers, 39 nor height, nor depth, nor any other created thing, will be able to separate us from the love of God, which is in Christ Jesus our Lord.”

** No nothing can pluck us from His hand but we sure can jump out of it! Notice, the verse does not** say that we cannot choose for ourselves to be separated from Him.

That’s because you’re not understanding the relationship that a Christian has with Christ. Christ is our Master, therefore, a Christian is His slave, which is why Scripture refers to Christians as slaves, not servant. A slave is owned, while a servant is not. A slave can’t “quit” believing he’s a slave. He is under the ownership of his Master. That is why Jesus says a slave’s “life” in Christ is “eternal.” The same Greek word used to describe Christ’s “eternal” kingdom - meaning without end. If we could just “jump out of it,” Jesus wouldn’t describe our “life” as “eternal.” That is why our “salvation” is “eternal” - without end.

 

[slh3016]

I don’t have to prove a negative. Since you are making the claim that EVERYBODY was baptized (incorrectly), then the burden of proof is on you to prove your assertion - not me. And no offense, but your “paraphrasing” isn’t supported by Paul’s writing. You are reading into Scripture. At best, it’s vague.

You clearly have an agenda/prejudice and whatever it is is clouding your perspective. You refuse to read the passage and see anything other than what YOU want to see.

Even as a full-fledged Protestant, I read this passage and could see the EXACT SAME INTERPRETATION as the Catholic Church. Again, your agenda/prejudice is skewing your perspective. It’s so painfully obvious when reading the entire passage starting in verse 10.

I take no offense, but I’ll let the more well-versed people of Scripture tell me if my paraphrasing is wholly inaccurate. You simply cannot take one verse out of context of the entire passage without skewing the meaning.

How would you paraphrase this passage from verse 10-17?

 

[steve_b]

Where does Scripture state that baptism brings people into “God’s covenantal family”? And, if baptism “justifies” someone to be “brought into God’s covenantal family,” then does that mean that people who aren’t baptized aren’t “brought into God’s covenantal family”? Does that mean that unbaptized babies who die aren’t “brought” into it? If not, where do they go when they die? What about other unbaptized people who die - invincibly ignorant, baptized by desire, baptized of blood? Are none of them “brought into God’s covenantal family” because they weren’t baptized?

Having not read all the posts, if someone hasn’t mentioned this already,

Col 2:11 In him also you were circumcised with a circumcision made without hands, by putting off the body of flesh in the circumcision of Christ; 12 and you were buried with him in baptism, in which you were also raised with him through faith in the working of God, who raised him from the dead.

To the OT Jew, circumcision was the act performed on a male child 7 days after birth, as the sign they are in the covenant. Jesus went through that on the 7th day after He was born.

Colossians shows baptism replaces circumcision. And in extension, why we baptise infants.

Re: those who die without baptism, we pray for them.

 

[slh3016]

I’ve addressed this already - several times now:

That’s because you’re not understanding the relationship that a Christian has with Christ. Christ is our Master, therefore, a Christian is His slave, which is why Scripture refers to Christians as slaves, not servant. A slave is owned, while a servant is not. A slave can’t “quit” believing he’s a slave. He is under the ownership of his Master. That is why Jesus says a slave’s “life” in Christ is “eternal.” The same Greek word used to describe Christ’s “eternal” kingdom - meaning without end. If we could just “jump out of it,” Jesus wouldn’t describe our “life” as “eternal.” That is why our “salvation” is “eternal” - without end.

Can you reference that Scripture verse?

I searched and found these:

Luke 1:2 “…servants of the Word”

Acts 16:16-17 “we were met by a slave girl…girl followed Paul and the rest of us, shouting, ‘These men are servants of the Most High God’…”

Romans 1:1: “Paul, a servant of Christ Jesus…”

Philippians 1:1 “Paul and Timothy, servants of Christ Jesus…”

Titus 1:1 “Paul, a servant of God…”

Jame 1:1 “James, a servant of God and of the Lord Jesus Christ…”

1 Peter 1:1 “Simon Peter, a servant and apostle of Jesus Christ…”

Jude 1:1 “Jude, a servant of Jesus Christ…”

Revelation 1:1 "The revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave him to show his servants what must soon take place. He made it known by sending his angel to his servant John…:

Granted, in Ephesians 6:6, you do find the words, “but like slaves of Christ…” However, in full context, the use of the words “slaves of Christ” is used because Paul was exhorting slaves to “obey {their} Masters with respect and fear, and with sincerity of heart, just as {they} would obey Christ.” (verse 5)

I’d like to compare the verse you are thinking of with those above for better clarity. Thanks!

 

[God_I_Love]

See it however you want, but the universal truth you are trying to imply (if your interpretation and beliefs are correct) is that there is NOTHING no matter how trivial or how heinous or evil that someone can do that will separate themselves from God once they have been “saved.” Using extreme examples as I did clearly demonstrates the absurdity of the argument. I’m sorry you don’t see it that way but as a Protestant-on-my-way-to-the-Catholic-Church Christian, I know all about “crying foul” when something doesn’t suit my own brand of theology.

Do you know what saved is? Do you even understand the power of the Spirit of Christ? Once you know that love you can’t help but cling to it; trial or triumph. That’s why Paul says that. He was telling the believers with the Spirit that nothing will separate them from it. Your incorrect assumption is that Hitler was aware of this love in the first place and therefore this statement by Paul applies to him. My argument still stands. The Spirit of God tells us through Paul that those if us in Christ, by His Spirit being in us, can never be separated from the love of God. That love btw, the active awareness of it in one’s life, is what ‘‘saved’’ is. It is a state not in sin. Sin being a blindness to God’s Spirit. The ‘‘kingdom of heaven’’ being within us all along.

Also it is important to mention how grace works. Once a saved individual is aware of the Spirit, Christ can begin sanctification through grace. If a saved person was to do heinous and evil acts (which can not be proved a saved individual truly can) grace would abound in them. Now as a saved person makes mistakes grace will correct and teach us.

 

[Abu]

pablope #45
The question to you then…is your interpretations correct over that of the Catholic Church?

thetazlord can never explain why his suppositions should prevail over Christ’s Church simply because he wills not to follow Christ through the Church which Christ established “teaching them to observe all things that I have commanded you; and lo, I am with you always, even to the end of the world.” (Mt 28:20).

Setting one’s self up against Christ is a sure recipe for error – so well displayed.

For it is Christ who mandated:
And if he will not hear the Church, let him be to thee as the heathen and the publican" (Matthew 18:17).

St John counsels: “We belong to God, and anyone who knows God listens to us, while anyone who does not belong to God refuses to hear us. This is how we know the spirit of truth and the spirit of deceit.” (1 Jn 4:6 ).

In Colossians 2: 4-23, St Paul calls on his flock to follow Christ “as you were taught” and warns against merely “human precepts and teachings.”

1 Cor 1:10: I urge you brothers, in the name of Our Lord Jesus Christ, that all of you agree in what you say, and that there be no divisions among you, but that you be united in the same mind and in the same purpose.

“That we should no longer be children, tossed to and fro and carried about by every wind of doctrine, by the trickery of men, in the cunning craftiness by which they lie in wait to deceive.” (Eph 4:14). Further, “For there will come a time when they will not endure the sound doctrine; but having itching ears, will heap up to themselves teachers according to their lusts. And they will turn away their hearing from the truth and turn aside rather to fables.” (2 Tim 4:3).

We see that the sentence for an obstinate heretic is invariably excommunication. He is separated from the company of the faithful, delivered up “to Satan for the destruction of the flesh, that the spirit may be saved in the day of our Lord Jesus Christ” (1 Corinthians 5:5).

St. Paul writes to Titus: “A man that is a heretic, after the first and second admonition, avoid: knowing that he, that is such a one, is subverted, and sinneth, being condemned by his own judgment” (Titus 3:10-11).

 

[slh3016]

Do you know what saved is? Do you even understand the power of the Spirit of Christ? Once you know that love you can’t help but cling to it; trial or triumph. That’s why Paul says that. He was telling the believers with the Spirit that nothing will separate them from it. Your incorrect assumption is that Hitler was aware of this love in the first place and therefore this statement by Paul applies to him. My argument still stands. The Spirit of God tells us through Paul that those if us in Christ, by His Spirit being in us, can never be separated from the love of God. That love btw, the active awareness of it in one’s life, is what ‘‘saved’’ is. It is a state not in sin. Sin being a blindness to God’s Spirit. The ‘‘kingdom of heaven’’ being within us all along.

Also it is important to mention how grace works. Once a saved individual is aware of the Spirit, Christ can begin sanctification through grace. If a saved person was to do heinous and evil acts (which can not be proved a saved individual truly can) grace would abound in them. Now as a saved person makes mistakes grace will correct and teach us.

Yes, I know all about being “saved” because I was saved, I am being saved and hopefully I will be saved as long as I abide in Jesus and endure to the end

And, I know all about grace, too You seem to think that Catholics don’t

Also, can you point to some early church writings that show that the earliest Christians believed OSAS? I don’t say this sarcastically, either. I’d truly like to read them.

 

[JonNC]

=thetazlord;12661873]Where is Jesus saying baptizing nations leads to salvation?

Where did I say that He did? He’s telling His disciples (and us) to go throughout the world. He’s telling them and us to baptize, and to teach.

Because the belief of John 3:5 is that a person receives the Holy Spirit DURING baptism, & it is baptism that allows someone to “enter the kingdom of God.” So, if “some will be baptized, then taught, while others may hear the word first, then be baptized,” that contradicts the “during” baptism interpreted in John 3:5. So, is the interpretation of John 3:5 or what you just said is, because they contradict each other?

So, the Eunuch contradicts the John 3:5, or the thief on the cross? There is no contradiction. Romans 10 tells us that faith comes by hearing, as well. The means of grace, be they the sacraments or the word, bring grace to us…

Jon

 

[thetazlord]

I’ve addressed this already - several times now:

forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=12662150&postcount=46

That’s because you’re not understanding the relationship that a Christian has with Christ. Christ is our Master, therefore, a Christian is His slave, which is why Scripture refers to Christians as slaves, not servant. A slave is owned, while a servant is not. A slave can’t “quit” believing he’s a slave. He is under the ownership of his Master. That is why Jesus says a slave’s “life” in Christ is “eternal.” The same Greek word used to describe Christ’s “eternal” kingdom - meaning without end. If we could just “jump out of it,” Jesus wouldn’t describe our “life” as “eternal.” That is why our “salvation” is “eternal” - without end.

The “divisions” that Paul is addressing in 1 Corinth 1:10 are divisions within the church, who were people who were identifying with a particular apostle, not because they were baptized in a particular apostle’s name. There is ZERO evidence in this verse, or elsewhere, that they were being baptized in the name of a particular apostle. When Paul states “were you baptized in the name of…” he was simply reminding them that they are to be baptized in the name of Christ, not “in the name of Paul” (v.13). All Paul is saying is that “he” only baptized two people, & the “household” of Stephanos, which we learn in Ch.16 that the members of this “household” had the ability to devote themselves to ministry, which negates the “belief” that “household” refers to babies included, since they can’t “devote” themselves to anything or anyone.

The point being is that if baptism is the “means” of salvation, based on John 3:5 & other passages, then “why” would Paul be “glad” that “he” baptized none of you, except these few people? What about those who were not baptized? Why would Paul be “glad” that he prevented them from being saved through baptism? “This” is the question I’m asking. Not the rabbit trail people have gone onto. Please focus on what I’m actually asking.

 

[thetazlord]

Where did I say that He did? He’s telling His disciples (and us) to go throughout the world. He’s telling them and us to baptize, and to teach.

You believe water baptism saves a person don’t you? So, if Jesus is saying BAPTIZE all nations, then isn’t Jesus saying if they don’t baptize those nations, then they can’t be saved?

So, the Eunuch contradicts the John 3:5, or the thief on the cross? There is no contradiction. Romans 10 tells us that faith comes by hearing, as well. The means of grace, be they the sacraments or the word, bring grace to us…

Only if the “interpretation” that the “water” in John 3:5 refers to the waters of baptism, would the Eunuch & the thief on the cross contradict it. However, if it doesn’t refer to baptism, but the “pouring out” of the Holy Spirit (based on Isaiah 44:3-5; Titus 3:5-7; etc), then they don’t contradict John 3:5. That’s why the correct understanding of John 3:5 supported by Scripture is important, rather than a “personal interpretation” of the verse that contradicts other passages like the ones you mentioned.

 

[thetazlord]

Can you reference that Scripture verse?

I searched and found these:

Luke 1:2 “…servants of the Word”

Acts 16:16-17 “we were met by a slave girl…girl followed Paul and the rest of us, shouting, ‘These men are servants of the Most High God’…”

Romans 1:1: “Paul, a servant of Christ Jesus…”

Philippians 1:1 “Paul and Timothy, servants of Christ Jesus…”

Titus 1:1 “Paul, a servant of God…”

Jame 1:1 “James, a servant of God and of the Lord Jesus Christ…”

1 Peter 1:1 “Simon Peter, a servant and apostle of Jesus Christ…”

Jude 1:1 “Jude, a servant of Jesus Christ…”

Revelation 1:1 "The revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave him to show his servants what must soon take place. He made it known by sending his angel to his servant John…:

Granted, in Ephesians 6:6, you do find the words, “but like slaves of Christ…” However, in full context, the use of the words “slaves of Christ” is used because Paul was exhorting slaves to “obey {their} Masters with respect and fear, and with sincerity of heart, just as {they} would obey Christ.” (verse 5)

I’d like to compare the verse you are thinking of with those above for better clarity. Thanks!

That’s because those verses use an incorrect translation of the Greek word “doulos” for “servant” which is better translated “slave.” Although Strong’s states that “doulos” can be translated “servant” as well, that’s really not the correct use of the Greek term:

blbclassic.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?strongs=G1401

“Slave” not “servant” is the correct translation of “doulos,” which is what a Christian “slave’s” relationship is to His “Master” (“kyrios” - ie: “Lord”), Jesus Christ. Masters own slaves, not servants. And slaves, not servants, are owned by their Masters, which is why Scripture states “you were paid with a price.” In fact, “doulos” is even used in the Greek translation of the OT (the Septuagint) for “slave.” The problem is that most translations incorrectly translate “doulos” as “servant,” rather than “slave.” For a good book on this, check out “Slave” by John MacArthur. The Hollman’s Bible is a good version that translates “doulos” correctly as “slave,” instead of “servant.”

When you realize the difference, you’ll understand why a slave can’t ever stop being a slave, like a servant can. So, if you’re a true “slave” of Christ - rather than simply a “servant” - you can’t ever “stop” being a slave of Christ, including stop believing in Him & stop acknowledging Him as your “Master.” And this is why salvation of a “slave” of Christ can’t be lost, because our “slavery” to Christ & “life” with Him is eternal (John 3:16; 10:27-29; Romans 8:38-39).

 

[thetazlord]

Having not read all the posts, if someone hasn’t mentioned this already,

Col 2:11 In him also you were circumcised with a circumcision made without hands, by putting off the body of flesh in the circumcision of Christ; 12 and you were buried with him in baptism, in which you were also raised with him through faith in the working of God, who raised him from the dead.

To the OT Jew, circumcision was the act performed on a male child 7 days after birth, as the sign they are in the covenant. Jesus went through that on the 7th day after He was born.

Before replying, it would help if you at least read the post I was responding to, because I addressed that. Please go back & read my response. For example, as you pointed out, circumcision was ONLY performed on MALE child, not both genders. So, “how” could baptism (which applies to both genders) “replace” circumcision that ONLY applied to one?

Colossians shows baptism replaces circumcision. And in extension, why we baptise infants.

It states no such thing. Again, go back & read my reply.

Re: those who die without baptism, we pray for them.

Why? Once a person dies, they’re eternal state is sealed - forever. Jesus made this clear with Lazarus & the rich man who died & went to Hades. Lazarus was in Abraham’s Bosom, while the rich man was in agony in the torturous side of Hades, which was separated by a “great gulf fixed” that Jesus said couldn’t be crossed, even when the rich man “called out” to Lazarus for help. “If” water baptism truly “saves” a person, then if a person is not baptized, then they would join the rich man - forever. There would be not point of “praying for them,” since they couldn’t “cross over” the “great gulf fixed,” anymore than the rich man couldn’t.

 

[thetazlord]

May I suggest you read and study this journal:

chnetwork.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/06/salvation.pdf

Justification By Faith
By Dr. William Marshner

Stages of Justification
Catholic and Protestant views on the respective roles of grace, faith and works cannot be compared meaningfully, unless one specifies what stage of the justificational process one is talking about. In the preparatory stage, for instance, in which prevenient graces first stir a person towards an interest in religious truth, towards repentance, and towards faith, Catholics, Lutherans and Calvinists are at one in saying “sola gratia.”2 A second stage is the very transition from death to life, which is the first stage of justification proper. Here the parties are at one in saying “sola fide,” though they seem to mean different things by it. Protestants tend to mean that, at this stage, by the grace of God, man’s act of faith is the sole act required of him; Catholics mean that faith is the beginning, foundation and root of all justification, since only faith makes possible the acts of hope and charity (i.e. love-for-God) which are also required.3 However, since most Protestants have a broad notion of the act of faith, whereby it includes elements of hope and love, it is often hard to tell how far the difference on this point is real and how far it is a matter of words. Finally, however, there comes a third stage, that of actual Christian life, with its problems of growth and perseverance. The man justified by faith is called to “walk” with God, to progress in holiness. It is at this stage that the parties sharply diverge. Catholics affirm, and Protestants strenuously deny, that the born-again Christian’s good works merit for him the increase of grace and of the Christian virtues. As a result, Protestant piety has no obvious place for the self- sacrifices, fasts, and states of perfection which are prominent features of Catholic piety. At each stage, neither the apparent agreements nor the apparent disagreements can be understood without looking at certain metaphysical quarrels, the chief of which is over the very existence of what
Catholics call “grace.”

No offense, but Scripturally, there are no “stages” of justification. Scripturally, to “justify,” or “make acceptable” or “make righteous” is a one time thing. You’re still confusing “justification” with “sanctification” which are two completely different things.

 

[thetazlord]

I don’t think you actually read the Bible or know much history of the early Church. Everyone was baptized in the early Church.

Acts 2:38
Acts 2:41
Acts 8:12
Acts 9:18
Acts 10:48
Acts 18:8
Romans 6:3
1 Corinthians 12:13
Galatians 3:27

I think you’ve lost the original context of my question, which I was asking about the church at Corinth not the Church “as a whole”:

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?p=12661894#post12661894

I’ve read those passages, but they have nothing to do with the question I asked about the church at Corinth - "where in 1 Corinthians 1 does it state that everybody in the church at Corinth was baptized in water? 1 Corinthians 12:13 is addressing being baptized in the Spirit, not baptized in water. You have to take the context of a passage into consideration before using it to defend a belief.

Paul himself was baptized (Acts 9:18) and says that he was sent by Jesus not to baptize but to preach the Gospel (1 Corinthians 1:17).

That only further proves my point. If baptism “saved” a person, they Jesus would have sent Paul to baptize, since that would be the “means” of salvation. The fact that Jesus didn’t send Paul to do that only proves that water baptism isn’t the means of salvation - the spreading of the Gospel is!

 

[slh3016]

The “divisions” that Paul is addressing in 1 Corinth 1:10 are divisions within the church, who were people who were identifying with a particular apostle, not because they were baptized in a particular apostle’s name. There is ZERO evidence in this verse, or elsewhere, that they were being baptized in the name of a particular apostle. When Paul states “were you baptized in the name of…” he was simply reminding them that they are to be baptized in the name of Christ, not “in the name of Paul” (v.13). All Paul is saying is that “he” only baptized two people, & the “household” of Stephanos, which we learn in Ch.16 that the members of this “household” had the ability to devote themselves to ministry, which negates the “belief” that “household” refers to babies included, since they can’t “devote” themselves to anything or anyone.

The point being is that if baptism is the “means” of salvation, based on John 3:5 & other passages, then “why” would Paul be “glad” that “he” baptized none of you, except these few people? What about those who were not baptized? Why would Paul be “glad” that he prevented them from being saved through baptism? “This” is the question I’m asking. Not the rabbit trail people have gone onto. Please focus on what I’m actually asking.

I NEVER said that they were baptized in the name of an apostle!!! I said the EXACT same thing as you. :banghead:

Nowhere in that passage is there ANY indication that there remained people in the church that were unbaptized. YOU are reading something there that does not exist. Paul was not stationary at one congregation. He moved around as evidenced by his letters to the various churches. Are you saying that there was no one left as an overseer of the congregation that would have had the ability to have baptized believers?

I read no less than 5 Protestant commentaries on this passage and they all agree with interpretation that I and others on this post have said. It has absolutely nothing to do with Paul leaving people unbaptized and the assertion that he did only comes from skewing his words out of context. A couple of the commentaries I read said that most likely the others had been baptized by Timothy.

 

[steve_b]

as you pointed out, circumcision was ONLY performed on MALE child, not both genders. So, “how” could baptism (which applies to both genders) “replace” circumcision that ONLY applied to one?

Entrance requirements into each covenant changed from OT to NT.

Entrance into the new covenant is baptism, and applies to both genders.
Entrance into the old covenant was through circumcision which was for males.
t:

It states no such thing. Again, go back & read my reply.

#23 are you refering to that post?

As I said previously

Col 2:11 In him also you were circumcised with a circumcision made without hands, by putting off the body of flesh in the circumcision of Christ; 12 and you were buried with him in baptism, in which you were also raised with him through faith in the working of God, who raised him from the dead.

The language is flowery, but it is based on covenantal understanding between old and new covenant. The following is more direct re: the theology of circumcision.

1 Corinthians 7:19 , Galatians 5:2 , Galatians 6:15

So

to the Jew, circumcision is required as entrance into that covenant. And limited to males. And usually performed 7 days after birth, as the sign they are now in that covenant. BTW that’s why Catholics baptize infants, as a sign they are now in the new covenant of God, and are now a new creation in Christ.

Bottomline, theologically, there is no more need for circumcision as you can see from the passages above.

Therefore, Baptism replaces circumcision
t:

Why? Once a person dies, they’re eternal state is sealed - forever.

That’s true.

and purgatory doesn’t change that dynamic. All those who go to purgatory for purification, eventually go to heaven. Since we don’t know how God will judge each soul, we pray for the dead, just in case they are in purgatory. If in hell no prayers will do them any good.

Baptism saves… if… one doesn’t die with mortal sin on their soul. Those souls who die in mortal sin, don’t go to purgatory, they go straight to hell.